20 Years of Evidence

Here is a summary of 20 years of evidence against evolution.

This is the time of year when many people look back over the previous year and send out a Christmas letter summarizing what they’ve done. We are taking this opportunity to look back over the past 20 years of our newsletters to summarize many of the scientific arguments we have published against the theory of evolution.

The Fire Analogy

From the beginning, we have noted the similarity between fire and evolution. One of the first things students learn in science class is that fire depends upon three things: fuel, oxygen, and heat. A fire goes out if any one of those three required elements is missing. Similarly, evolution requires three things: abiogenesis (the spontaneous origin of life), biological innovation, and time. Take away any one of those three, and the theory of evolution is extinguished. We have presented strong, compelling arguments against not just one, but all three necessary conditions for evolution.

The Disciplinary Approach

We’ve also looked at the theory of evolution from the perspective of different scientific disciplines. That is, we’ve looked at the theory of evolution through the eyes of an astronomer to see if astronomy supports or contradicts any or all of the three necessary conditions for evolution. Then we’ve repeated the analysis from the point of view of physics, biology, psychology, genetics, and chemistry.

Evolutionary Arguments

We’ve also analyzed the arguments made by famous evolutionists (and unknown evolutionists who emailed us) and showed that claims in favor of evolution are based on religious or philosophical arguments—not science.

Astronomy Against Evolution

The Big Bang relates to abiogenesis and the time available for the theory of evolution.

The Big Bang is merely a philosophical conjecture about how everything began. It has not been scientifically confirmed, nor can it ever be. It is based on real scientific observations (of such things as cosmic background radiation) coupled with unverifiable speculation and unwarranted extrapolation. The argument is basically, “If THIS happened then we would see the result we measured. Since we did see the expected result, THIS must have happened.” That’s like saying, “If Santa Claus exists, he would leave toys under the tree on Christmas morning. We did find toys under the tree, so that proves Santa exists!” The observation that there are toys under the tree Christmas morning doesn’t tell us anything about how they got there. The observation that there is cosmic background radiation doesn’t tell us anything about what caused it (or when it was generated).

The Big Bang theory is the basis for believing that there has been enough time for abiogenesis to occur, and that there has been enough time for life to diversify. That’s where the Big Bang theory fails to support evolution.

According to the Big Bang theory, an expanding cloud of hydrogen molecules suddenly appeared. Gravity caused those hydrogen molecules to clump together to form stars, some of which blew up to create the heavier elements. In the past, we have argued (1) gravity can’t make hydrogen atoms clump together to form a star, and (2) any other unknown force could not assemble hydrogen fast enough if such a force even existed.

The Moon, which is a lot heavier than a hydrogen molecule, doesn’t have enough mass to attract oxygen molecules (which are eight times as heavy as hydrogen gas) which is why there isn’t any atmosphere on the Moon. Clearly, the gravitational force between a few hydrogen molecules isn’t strong enough to start to form a star.

Suppose you made a huge, perfectly sealed Plexiglas box with a valve on the side. Hook the valve up to a vacuum pump, and suck everything out of the box. Then, connect the valve to a tank of hydrogen gas and fill the box. Would gravity cause the hydrogen molecules to clump together? Certainly not! Gasses don’t naturally do that. (That’s what makes them gas, not solid, or liquid.) That’s a scientific fact verified by observation.

But, suppose we are wrong. Suppose gravity really is strong enough to cause hydrogen gas to condense into a star; or suppose there is some other force which could cause hydrogen atoms to form a star. How fast would it have to happen?

We did the math. 1 We showed that the Sun is losing mass at a tremendous rate as mass gets converted to energy. Astronomers calculated precisely how much mass the Sun is losing every second—and it’s a lot! At its current rate, it will take the Sun 14,658 billion years to burn all its mass. (That’s about 1,000 times longer than the mythical 14.6 billion year age of the universe.) That means some force had to attract hydrogen atoms together at an average rate 1,460 times faster than the Sun is losing mass right now in order for the Sun to form in 10 billion years, so that it could be shining for the last 4.6 billion years. How could any scientist believe that?

It’s not just the Sun which causes timing problems for evolutionists—it’s the Moon, too.

Even before the Apollo 11 astronauts left a laser reflector on the Moon, scientists had used radar to determine that the Moon is getting farther from the Earth every year due to interaction with the tides on Earth. This means it was closer to the Earth in the past. When was it too close to the Earth to orbit it? In previous articles 2 we calculated that the Moon could not possibly have orbited the Earth for more than three million years at the very longest, and certainly much, much less time than that.

So, observations of the Sun and the Moon both indicate that the old ages of the Sun, Moon, Earth, and Universe claimed by the Big Bang theory can’t be correct. Even if abiogenesis could happen, and biological innovation could cause radical diversity in living things, there would not be enough time for life to have evolved into the many different forms we see today.

Physics Against Evolution

There are lots of physical arguments about the age of the Earth. Most of the arguments are based on extrapolation of current processes, such as the accumulation of salt or sediment in the sea, or the thickness of sedimentary rocks. These arguments all depend upon the unverifiable assumption that the rates of physical processes seen today have remained unchanged.

Evolutionists tend to favor radiometric methods for determining the age of rocks; but the methods evolutionists use always assume unverifiable initial amounts of mother and daughter isotopes.

There is only one radiometric method that does not rely on estimates of initial conditions. That method was described in our article on U-Series Dating. 3 Wherever uranium 238 exists now, no matter how much uranium 234 was near it to begin with (from tons to absolutely none) the ratio of uranium 234 to uranium 238 will reach equilibrium after 1.729 million years. If the Earth is older than 1.729 million years, the ratio of uranium 234 to uranium 238 should be 1 to 18,089 everywhere no matter what the initial concentrations were. But the fact is that measured ratios range from 74% to 786% of what they should be if the Earth is more than two million years old. The measured ratios vary so much because the initial concentrations in different places were different, and there has not been time for them to reach equilibrium, which means there was not enough time for the theory of evolution to be true.

Biology Against Evolution

The theory of evolution is based on the notion that there are small differences in individuals of any given species. If natural selection favors certain differences, these differences will continue to grow without limit until the difference is so large that a new species is born.

One fallacy in this logic is the “without limit” part. Horse breeders used artificial selection (which is much more powerful than unguided natural selection) to breed faster horses. Data from the Kentucky Derby shows that the winning times decreased from about 131 seconds in the 1890’s down to 122 seconds in the 1960’s, and has continued to be “the most exciting 2 minutes in sports” ever since. 4There is a limit to how much the speed of a horse can evolve, even under extreme selection pressure.

Increased running speed is merely a refinement of an existing characteristic. Evolution requires much more than just improvement in existing characteristics—it requires existing characteristics changing into an entirely new characteristic. That has never been observed in nature or in the lab. It has always been assumed to have happened unobserved. That’s not science!

The other fallacy in the “without limit” assumption has to do with extrapolation. If you know how long it takes for a train to travel from New York to Chicago, you can extrapolate and make a reasonable estimate of how long it will take to get from Chicago to Los Angeles; but you can’t estimate how long it will take that train to get from Los Angeles to Honolulu. There is a limit to how far the train can go before it runs out of track. The same is true of variations in species. You can breed faster and faster horses—up to a point. Sooner or later evolution runs out of track. Evolution stops before a horse turns into Pegusus.

Even some evolutionists question whether or not natural selection is strong enough for evolution to work.5 We illustrated the problem by examining the survival aspects of the popular (at the time) reality TV programs American Idol and Survivor. 6 It isn’t necessarily the slowest gazelle that wanders right by the crouching lion. Survival of the luckiest might be more effective than survival of the fittest.

Evolutionists believe that fish evolved into amphibians, which evolved into reptiles, which evolved into mammals. But if you look at the circulatory systems of fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals (as we did 7 ) you have to wonder how the simple two-chambered heart of a fish evolved into the four-chambered heart of a mammal by accident. The plumbing is entirely different. There is no valid scientific reason for believing this could happen.

Linnaeus invented the modern system of taxonomy (that is, biological classification) to categorize living things into similar categories to make them easier to study. He didn’t believe in evolution. Now, evolutionists incorrectly assume that similar features were inherited from a common ancestor, so they tend to see taxonomy as a representation of their mythical Tree of Life. Although the Tree looks great from a distance, examination of the leaves creates serious problems for evolutionists, as we have shown in previous articles. 891011121314151617

Perhaps the greatest biological argument against evolution is sex. That’s why we have written so many articles about the many different reasons why sex makes no sense at all from an evolutionary perspective.1819202122232425 Asexual reproduction is a straightforward do-it-yourself proposition. Sexual reproduction involves finding a cooperative partner of the opposite sex, which is sometimes difficult. How did male and female variants evolve by chance at the same time in the same place? How did the instinct to mate come about by chance? Why are there so many different forms of sexual reproduction? What did bees and flowering plants do before the other one evolved? The sexual questions go on and on.

Psychology Against Evolution

Sex leads to love (or vice versa). Unselfish love flies in the face of competition for survival. The scientific literature is filled with articles trying to explain altruistic behavior from an evolutionary perspective; and they all fail because they use twisted logic to prove that being unselfish really is the selfish thing to do. We’ve dealt with that, too, in past articles. 2627

Genetics Against Evolution

As we mentioned earlier, evolutionists have tried to use physical similarities of living and extinct things to determine the mythical Tree of Life without success. In recent years, evolutionists have tried to use genetic similarities to do the same thing—with even worse results. We have an entire page devoted to links to articles about how DNA analysis contradicts conventional evolutionary thought.28 The more scientists compare the DNA of one creature with another “related” creature, the less credible the relationship is. Genetic analysis is probably the greatest disappointment evolutionists have—and may turn out to nail the coffin shut on the theory of evolution.

Chemistry Against Evolution

Chemistry primarily addresses abiogenesis. Is there any natural process by which chemicals can combine to form a living cell? No. Just simply, “No.” We have devoted a whole page to links to our articles about why abiogenesis can’t happen.29 If you don’t have time to read them all, please at least read “A Tale of Two Prizes” 30 and “Looking For Life. 31”

Without abiogenesis, the theory of evolution is literally dead on arrival. Because the arguments against abiogenesis are so strong, evolutionists typically try to separate abiogenesis from evolution.

Evolutionists’ Debating Strategy

Since evolutionists can’t make a strong scientific case in favor of evolution, they generally attack religion. They portray the creationists’ belief as a fairy tale, and then they present their fairy tale about how life evolved; but their fairy tale lacks one critical ingredient: the fairy. The theory of evolution requires miraculous, supernatural events to occur without the aid of any supernatural force, which paradoxically, in their eyes, makes the miracles more believable.

Since evolutionists don’t have any scientific evidence to back up their fairy tale, most of their arguments are irrelevant attacks on the religion, qualifications, motivations, or honesty of their opponents.

There’s no question about it—the scientific evidence is strongly against the theory of evolution.